That the other edge of the sword. Private ownership locks up the land for anyone other than the owner, yet the Federal government as a guardian of public lands imposes rules and regulations that are often in direct conflict with local desires, traditions and needs. And of course the revenue thing is also very real. Alaska has no State property tax, but resource development, which does pay taxes and/or fees, is severely restricted on Federal land and the revenue goes to them, not the State.
ETA
The land situation in Alaska is complicated by ANCSA (Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.) Not only do the Feds āownā 222 million acres (60% of the State) the Native Corporations own another 44 million acres (11%) which was selected in checker board fashion in township (6 mi x 6 mi squares) chunks, which effectively isolated the non-selected townships from being accessed by the public without trespassing on their land. The State is entitled to 104.5 million acres (28%) under that Act, but has only selected about 90 million acres at this time. Private ownership, other than the Native Corporations, amount to barely over 1% of the land.
Actually, itās fairly easy to demonstrate that Iām correct.
You see, the way progressives read the Constitution significant portions of it serve no purpose and are superfluities.
This is on account of powers enumerated that could otherwise be perfectly reasonable to construe through the one clause alone as it has been misconstructed but also on account to two enumerated exceptions to the rule of enumerated powers by which the Constitution was constructed. And of course the misconstruction you support leaves the 10th Amendment with no legal function.
The way the Court has intentionally abused and misconstructed the language hardly anything more needed to have been written of Article 1 at all, and certainly it would have been unneeded to mention that in what would become the seat of government, the District of Columbia, that Congress would have legislative powers in all circumstances whatsoever as anything possible to undertake would have then been already covered by the first clause.
(s) I marvel that for a hundred and fifty years we didnāt have a government faithful to the Constitution but FDR and the progressives saved us! How amazing that infidelity and abeyance came first but faithfulness and obedience came later! (/s)
I donāt disagree. Do you think that I was saying that private ownership of land shouldnāt exist? I think it should. I have ideas for why it should exist.
Relative to a world without patents, a world with patents comes at the cost of being able implement something that someone in a world with patents might have a patent on. Thatās not a value judgment.
People who oppose patents or certain kinds of patents arenāt going to themselves as having a ārightā to someone elseās āworkā. Thatās not how I see it in the cases where I am opposed to patents existing.
Although I donāt believe patents are a prerequisite for a good society (as opposed to being able to own, say, land), I support the existence of certain classes of them. There are some kinds of patents that Iām absolutely opposed and I would happily abolish them.
If you are interested in knowing which classes of patents I support/oppose and why, Iād be happy to share them with you. Iāve been interested in knowing your thoughts on IP.
Democrats bitch about those states in the west not being net tax contributors but lock up as much as 2/3-3/4 of the land with federal ownership preventing exploitation for profit which would generate huge amounts of tax revenue.
Thatās like blaming your wife for making you beat her every day.
IF you want to kill innovation take away the patents which would then kill the profit motive because people would lack the capital to work with and no benefit for the risks.
I oppose certain types of patents, not all of them. Incentivizing innovation is not one of the reasons for which I support patents, so it wonāt sway me to support the patents I oppose.
